Let's discuss skepticalscience.com's "How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?"

[scottmartin49]

"Yours is the exact approach that stifles science and learning.

It is not in the realm of modern science. Reminds of the

time when the church ruled science. Anyone who 

was not in line with the church's ideas was a heretic."- blizzard1024

 

blizz; Since you lobbed one right in my wheelhouse, and since it's so telling of your overall perspective, please allow me to respond.

 

The historical situations you allude to were not primarily driven by either science, theology, or religion- they were about the relationships between established power structures and new information. Change, in either reality or mere presumption, is always threatening to the current status of established power structures; either as an opportunity for retrenchment or as potential to be weakened.

 

Consider from your perspective; which parties (and yourself) are threatened by which data set, and why. Now consider wxtrix's perspective similarly. The concept of a purely objective 'scientific reality' is itself false- something I hope both of you might be able to agree to without feeling any sense of betraying scientific 'orthodoxy'.

 

Arguing about causes in the face of effects is useful only when the consensus exists that change has happened, or will occur. Solve that first, either by agreement or stipulation, and your efforts will have merit. Otherwise, they are wasted and by definition, non-scientific.

 

To simplify in a 'film noir' meme- "Follow the money..."

[blizzard1024]

Deforestation is actually a significant factor globally. It causes cooling because deforested areas have a higher albedo. 

 

 

Concrete, while it seems significant is such a microscopic % of the earth I haven't heard of it being considered a significant factor. Your perception of how much concrete there is is probably altered by constantly being in populated areas. 

 

I think it is documented that land form changes affect local climate more than global climate. Not sure where I read this but it is common sense. It is when the land form changes affect a

climate station which then represents a whole area that problems arise. That is when they have to adjust for UHI and land form changes which I believe they do. Nevertheless, there has

been whole scale large changes in the landscape that potentially could affect climate on a regional scale as Pielke Sr has maintained. I would love to see what the effect of reforestation in the

east has done to the local climate here in NY. I know the hills of central NY were largely deforested 100 years ago. Now they are cloaked in mixed hardwood/evergreen forests. Does the albedo

changes affect  extreme winter minimums when there is snow cover?  In addition, with mostly fields vs forests 100 years ago, is there less evapotranspiration in the summer reducing dewpoints and 

hence less convective clouds and higher maximums? Plus drier air is easier to heat that moist air. This could explain the extreme eastern summer maximums in the 1910s and 1930s and

also extreme minimums around this time. Also the thermometers could be in question so long ago.

[scottmartin49]

The regional variables you are describing are all mitigated within the larger data sets utililized for global climate probabilities, and if the aggregated regional variabilities trend in one direction we see a broader effect, even without ascribing causation. You've left youself an out with the 'recording error' principle, but this sounds generally (overall), and specificly (regionally), that you're allowing for climate change caused by human activity, yes? 

 

Are you willing to stipulate that the aggregated data sets are statisticly valid?

[Snow_Miser]

Well where is the dramatic change in cloud cover and temperature over the course of the solar cycle, especially in the case of the exceptionally deep prolonged recent minimum?

 

I've already presented evidence to you. Unfortunately, because of your ability to be extremely closed-minded, you made a conspiracy theory claiming that the evidence I posted was made up.

 

Fail.

[Snow_Miser]

Deforestation is actually a significant factor globally. It causes cooling because deforested areas have a higher albedo. 

 

 

Concrete, while it seems significant is such a microscopic % of the earth I haven't heard of it being considered a significant factor. Your perception of how much concrete there is is probably altered by constantly being in populated areas. 

 

Land Use changes are not limited to deforestation.

[skierinvermont]

I've already presented evidence to you. Unfortunately, because of your ability to be extremely closed-minded, you made a conspiracy theory claiming that the evidence I posted was made up.

 

Fail.

 

I'm not the only one. A number of people have read that study and come away wondering where the hell his data came from. Including Don S. It doesn't match the data that is publicly available for SLR.

 

Shapiro, right?

[Snow_Miser]

I'm not the only one. A number of people have read that study and come away wondering where the hell his data came from. Including Don S. It doesn't match the data that is publicly available for SLR.

Shapiro, right?

Go keep on thinking that the data that disagrees with you is made up skier.

[csnavywx]

The rate change of climate in the Holocene has been roughly plus or minus 2.5C/century from the GISP2

ice core. see graph below. 

 

GISP2.png

 

 

This implies significant changes to the climate system in the North Atlantic region which hosts

the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (MOC) which is part of the thermohaline oceanic current that

transports vast amounts of heat to the high latitudes.  This is KEY in the Earth's climate and through the paleorecords

has been shown to have major influence that spreads around the globe through the connected ocean currents.

 

This does show a more stable climate in the holocene but there are still significant

variations in the Holocene related to the MOC. These changes are on the same order of magnitude

of today suggesting our current changing climate is well within the bounds of the natural variations in the

Holocene. This, to me, suggests we can't assume a stable climate in equilibrium in 1850. 

Sorry, but this argument doesn't add up for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that a general +2C warming in the Arctic over the past 30-35 years blows away even the most extreme variation during the Holocene. An OOM estimate here might not be appropriate, as by that standard, it would require a 25C warming to qualify as "definitely AGW in origin".

[beneficii]

Where is that chart which showed all the forcing taking place, including the impact of human activities--which it showed were making a difference?

[LocoAko]

Where is that chart which showed all the forcing taking place, including the impact of human activities--which it showed were making a difference?

This?

 

[skierinvermont]

Go keep on thinking that the data that disagrees with you is made up skier.

 

I've shown you a chart of actual SLR data, and the chart in Shapiro. The two charts are different.

 

You've had no response. If you would like to offer a response, I am all ears. 

[beneficii]

This?

 

 

Ja.  That's the one.

[blizzard1024]

Sorry, but this argument doesn't add up for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that a general +2C warming in the Arctic over the past 30-35 years blows away even the most extreme variation during the Holocene. An OOM estimate here might not be appropriate, as by that standard, it would require a 25C warming to qualify as "definitely AGW in origin".

30 years is not a century...how has greenland changed in 100 years? There are multi-decadal scale cycles that overwhelm the long term variability. That is why the Earth supposedly has halted warming in the last 15 years or so...cold PDO...low solar etc. Also see Antarctica ice core data...very similar. Recent warming not unusual among the interglacial periods when climate is more stable. So we have both ends of the Earth at high latitudes that don't show anything that unusual over a 100 year period as far as the interglacial periods go. see graph below: 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Go keep on thinking that the data that disagrees with you is made up skier.

 

 

I've shown you a chart of actual SLR data, and the chart in Shapiro. The two charts are different.

 

You've had no response. If you would like to offer a response, I am all ears. 

 

 

Go keep on thinking that the data that disagrees with you is made up skier.

 

 

Skier has completely debunked that data.  Each time you do not respond about it 

 

So why bring it up, you know it's bunk?????

[skierinvermont]

. That is why the Earth supposedly has halted warming in the last 15 years or so

 

This is false. The warming trend the last 15 years is .08C/decade GISS, .04C/decade Had4. After adjusting for ENSO and TSI it is .15C/decade - near the expected AGW rate.

[blizzard1024]

This is false. The warming trend the last 15 years is .08C/decade GISS, .04C/decade Had4. After adjusting for ENSO and TSI it is .15C/decade - near the expected AGW rate.

 

OK the warming has slowed down (rate of rise sharply down) to .04 or .08 C/decade which is very small. In any event, I was saying that natural variations, ENSO TSI etc like you state

have halted (slowed down....whatever...)the warming. You have taken my comment out of context. 

[Snow_Miser]

Skier has completely debunked that data.  Each time you do not respond about it 

 

So why bring it up, you know it's bunk?????

He claimed that the authors of the papers that found that there was an amplified solar signal in the oceans made the data up. That's not debunking. That's making things up.

[skierinvermont]

He claimed that the authors of the papers that found that there was an amplified solar signal in the oceans made the data up. That's not debunking. That's making things up.

 

It's not making things up if I provided clear incontrovertible evidence of the claim. I provided a chart of actual SLR data, and compared it to Shapiro's. The two are different. The data is made up. 

 

Also, it's impossible for there to be an 11-yr periodicity in tide gauge data. There isn't even precision to detect such a short-term periodicity.

 

 

You have yet to respond, aside from name calling and diverting from the subject.

[Snow_Miser]

It's not making things up if I provided clear incontrovertible evidence of the claim. I provided a chart of actual SLR data, and compared it to Shapiro's. The two are different. The data is made up. 

 

Also, it's impossible for there to be an 11-yr periodicity in tide gauge data. There isn't even precision to detect such a short-term periodicity.

 

 

You have yet to respond, aside from name calling and diverting from the subject.

 

If the data was "made up" then the reviewers that reviewed that article would have picked it up, and it wouldn't have gotten published in a leading Climate Journal.

 

For the record, this is the caption to Image 6 present in the paper demonstrating a solar amplification.

 

 

Sea level change rate over the 20th century is based on 24 tide gauges previously

chosen byDouglas [1997] for the stringent criteria

they satisfy (solid line, with 1-error range denoted with

the shaded region). The rates are compared with thetotal

solar irradiancevariations Lean [2000] (dashed line, with the

secular trends removed). Here r = 0.54 giving a p = 10−4

(for Neff = 47). The inset depicts the sea level change

rate folded over the solar cycle together with a sinusoidal

least 2 fit (each year is assigned a phase relative to the

preceding and following solar minima, after which all data

points within a phase bin are averaged; the data is then

shown twice, over two cycles, for clarity). The tide gauge

data leads the solar forcing by 3±6 months. The Inset also

depicts the TOPEX / Jason satellite based sea level change

rate overlaid on the solar-cycle folded tide-gauge data. Besides

the large 1997 El-Ni˜no event, the two different data

sets are consistent with each other.

 

There is no data made up in the paper. End of story.